alien presence on moon???

[MeteorWayne]

So What?<br /><br />You obviously have no understanding about the conditions, and the limitations of technology at the time (which was 40 years ago. What was the size of the hard drive on your home computer 40 years ago? Oh, you probably weren't born then.)<br /><br />If you want to imagine that noisy pixels, or perfectly natural ridges, rays, peaks and craters are a sign of alien presence, go for it.<br />Don't expect the rest of us to accept your interpretations as fact.<br /><br />Your "evidence" is lacking in clarity, reliability, source, and visual value.<br /><br />If you don't understand the technology of the time, and the processing of the data, you can freely imagine anything if you want to.<br /><br />Which you appear to do.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* You obviously have no understanding about the conditions,<br />* and the limitations of technology at the time (which was 40<br />* years ago.<br /><br />That is obviously a 6x6 Hasselblad image, that even today, aswell as 40 years ago, offers tremendous imaging resolution plus dynamics. The shutter speed is most likely atleast 1/60, probably faster.<br /><br />The image and the scanning are perfect.<br /><br />So what is it that is in the image? No need to argue, just explain.

 

[brandbll]

I have already told you everything i know. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

FYI, I went and conducted a search of Russian sites for the <i>подводн-корабль 1</i>. There is *zero* mention of this vehicle, only Submarines. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

What makes it obvious?<br /><br />Meanwhile, I'll check my archives. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* What makes it obvious? <br /><br />That you and I can see it. Hence, it is obvious that this anomaly exists. <br /><br />We should not even have this debate, because this is not philosophical issue, but we have something that we simply want to know what it is.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"What was the size of the hard drive on your home computer 40 years ago?"</font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Good one, MW, but, as I'm sure you know, hard drives on personal computers didn't come on the market until around 1980 with a whopping big 5MB <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[lsbd]

lint?<br />dust speck?<br />space debris?<br /><br />could be a hundred other things than an "alien mothership" that NASA is trying/has been covering up for the last 40 years

 

[aphh]

* Good one, MW, but, as I'm sure you know, hard drives on<br />* personal computers didn't come on the market until around<br />* 1980 with a whopping big 5MB<br /><br />6x6 grayscale film had almost the same resolution 40 years ago than today, which is vast.<br /><br />We are talking about multi-million pixel comparable imaging device.

 

[aphh]

* could be a hundred other things than an "alien<br />* mothership" that NASA is trying/has been covering up for<br />* the last 40 years<br /><br />Exactly. Could be. But atleast you confirm that you can see it?<br /><br />Phew, only took, what 3 hours?

 

[lsbd]

I have never said I didn't see it, IN THAT IMAGE. it was all the other images you linked in which I didn't see anything. (this includes evidence of anomolies being photoshopped out)

 

[Swampcat]

Repeatedly asking for help in identifying something while rejecting the most obvious and rational explanation is pointless. The only thing you've proved is that you have some images of interesting rock formations on the Moon.<br /><br />Startling? Hardly. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />I'm rather ashamed of myself for even posting here.<img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[brandbll]

Oh, well of course. The information isn't from the internet. I was sitting at my desk reading this thread over, next thing i knew i blacked out and all of a sudden i had the full story in my head when i woke up. I didn't even have to look it up on the internet i was so sure the information was true. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

Now that you see it, let's find out what it is, shall we? If it's debris or a passing Russian satellite, I'm fine with it.<br /><br />It's just the attitude that you demonsrated that pisses me off. How could any evidence be enough to warrant further investigation, if you dismiss it from the start?

 

[aphh]

* The only thing you've proved is that you have some images<br />* of interesting rock formations on the Moon.<br /><br />Untrue and totally pointless. <br /><br />Were it a rock formation, they'd show in 3 other pictures that were taken in the same photo session quite close to each other.<br /><br />If no tampering has occurred with the 3 other images, this anomaly has to be in the imaging device, which it doesn't appear upon further investigation, or it has to be spaceborne flying object. <br /><br />Why were 4 images taken in the first place? It's not like they had film to burn just like that. Film is heavy.

 

[yevaud]

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bearack]

ROFL!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Must have been the Russian Vodka, I'm sure of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[brandbll]

подводн-корабль 1???? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="3">You wanna talk some jive? I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!</font></p> </div>

 

[lsbd]

again, you seem to be confused. I never dismissed the image in question. It was all the other images you linked where I saw nothing. As I said, there is nothing in that image to indicate that the "anomoly" is an alien mothership. defect in the film, lint on the lens, dust floating by, etc., etc., etc.

 

[bearack]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Why were 4 images taken in the first place? It's not like they had film to burn just like that. Film is heavy.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's actually a very good point. They rarely took images of the same locations on flybys. They had limited film for graphing the surface. I don't know if it means anything, but it's an interesting point none the less.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* It was all the other images you linked where I saw<br />* nothing.<br /><br />That you see nothing in images 2160 and 2161 is part of the issue at hand. They are from the same region taken minutes, if not seconds apart.<br /><br />Yet the anomaly only shows in image 2159.<br /><br />Like I said, I do not claim that I located the mothership. But I did locate a anomaly, which none of you seem to have a credible explanation.<br /><br />Period.<br /><br />

 

[lsbd]

easy, peasy...they just got resupplied by the alien mothership <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[yevaud]

<i>If no tampering has occurred with the 3 other images, this anomaly has to be in the imaging device, which it doesn't appear upon further investigation, <b>or it has to be spaceborne flying object.</b></i><br /><br />Making a periodic pass through Phenomena, when your comment caught my eye.<br /><br />In my majors, I did one hell of a lot of image processing and analysis. Having some experience with this, I must ask you, "and why does it *have* to be a "spaceborne flying object?" You have leapt directly to an unsupported conclusion. In fact, of all of the possibilities as to what the anomaly is, I would choose your selection as dead-last.<br /><br />Artifact abounds in image processing, and in point of fact what with various radiation effects on sensitive film, I would *expect* to see a fair amount. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* That's actually a very good point. They rarely took images<br />* of the same locations on flybys. They had limited film for<br />* graphing the surface. I don't know if it means anything, but<br />* it's an interesting point none the less.<br /><br />When I think about it, they were asked to film that region thoroughly. Why?

 

[lsbd]

<font color="yellow">That you see nothing in images 2160 and 2161 is part of the issue at hand. They are from the same region taken minutes, if not seconds apart. <br /><br />Yet the anomaly only shows in image 2159.</font><br /><br />which gives credance to the idea that it is a random defect in the film or a passing bit of dust/debris/lint.<br /><br />much more plausible than NASA photoshopping an alien mothership out of 3 of 4 images.